Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level.", ">\n\nYet these same scientists, and many others, give no convincing evidence that there will be a 2066. The day that would have been 2066 will arrive, and likely the hole will indeed be gone, but that's not the same thing." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level.", ">\n\nYet these same scientists, and many others, give no convincing evidence that there will be a 2066. The day that would have been 2066 will arrive, and likely the hole will indeed be gone, but that's not the same thing.", ">\n\nThey should call my proctologist because he mended my hole in a matter of weeks." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level.", ">\n\nYet these same scientists, and many others, give no convincing evidence that there will be a 2066. The day that would have been 2066 will arrive, and likely the hole will indeed be gone, but that's not the same thing.", ">\n\nThey should call my proctologist because he mended my hole in a matter of weeks.", ">\n\nAll it takes is one well-aimed GRB…" ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level.", ">\n\nYet these same scientists, and many others, give no convincing evidence that there will be a 2066. The day that would have been 2066 will arrive, and likely the hole will indeed be gone, but that's not the same thing.", ">\n\nThey should call my proctologist because he mended my hole in a matter of weeks.", ">\n\nAll it takes is one well-aimed GRB…", ">\n\nYes, atmosphere weather. The one thing we are great about predicting 40+ years into the future." ]

[ "That's the only good news we've had on the climate in my entire lifetime, I think.", ">\n\nThat and acid rain, our two big wins.", ">\n\nAnd it’s important to note that both were fixed with legislation, not the individual efforts of citizens. If we want to fix other climate change efforts, we need legislation to change the behavior of corporations, not just small scale policies that blame the consumer.", ">\n\nThis can't be overstated. Individuals can do their parts, but your and my driving slightly smaller, more efficient cars isn't stopping Amazon from putting 1000s of vehicles on the road unnecessarily (as an example).", ">\n\nAmazon is going EV and less people driving to pickup means you have to deliver. Amazon swaps people from having to go pick it up, to have it delivered, on efficient routes and efficient vehicles with more efficiency soon in Amazon/Rivian EVs. The new vans are amazing.", ">\n\nPoint taken. But you know what I/we mean. Plus, scrapping old vehicles that still run fine for brand new EVs isn't the most environmentally sound practice either.", ">\n\nThese vans will probably be used in the USPS eventually as well and those vehicles get like 3 mpg on fuel, basically WWII delivery trucks. \nAny advancement by delivery efficiency is good, and the only ones that can really do that are large corps as the cons won't vote for anything pro-climate.\nWhen delivery trucks are all EV, charging infrastructure will be even better.\nVehicles can be recycled in many ways.", ">\n\nElectric vehicles arnet much better for the environment. Most electricity still comes from petroleum plants and mining rare earth materials needed for the vehicles is also bad. The best fix is to push for nuclear backed by renewable along with figuring out how to mine in space.", ">\n\nOver the lifetime of a vehicle, EV's are substantially better than gas. Even with your argument about power plants. Power plants are so much more efficient than a gas powered car that powering thousands of electric cars is much less C02 than thousands of gas cars driving around.", ">\n\nEVs need to not use colbalt due to the slaves that dig it out of the ground. I don't know what material is better, but after seeing a cobalt mine, I rather drive gas-powered engines forever.", ">\n\nMan it's almost like government intervention on behalf of the environment works and the market does actually sort itself out when you ban improper practices. CFCs would never have been replaced without a nudge from governments. And when they were banned we happened to find a solution fairly easily", ">\n\nI think this is the first time I’ve heard anything positive about climate change etc. on my whole time on reddit", ">\n\nHere's a few more: CO2 emissions are a quarter of what they were 40 years ago, over 150,000 tons of plastic were removed from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans last year, 2021 and 2022 yielded some of the highest numbers of trees planted around the world in recent decades, and the use of renewable energies and recycling are at an all-time high.", ">\n\nBy CO2 emissions, do you mean just US emissions or worldwide because that doesn’t mix with the stats I’ve seen on any website.", ">\n\nOh look and international treaty that protects the environment and didn't disable the economy. \nMaybe let's do it again.", ">\n\nThat’s not true. The industry had to innovate with R&D to replace CFCs & HCFCs. Some applications still use them actually because there is recycled refrigerant available. When government coordinates with industry, initiatives can be successful", ">\n\nCan't import HCFCs anymore, even from reclaimed, have to get it from domestic reclaimed sources. It's pretty close to being completely gone at this point.", ">\n\nSo its specifically just fucked for the duration of my life?", ">\n\n\"Not if i can help it!\"\nthrows dry ice at the sky", ">\n\ndry ice falls down from the sky and burns you the face", ">\n\nAnd so a new supervillain is born!", ">\n\nI am… Freezer Burn", ">\n\n\"It landed on my dick! Now I'm Fro-Bone!\"", ">\n\nThe pro-bono lawyer.", ">\n\nOh yeah. That one time when the world believed science and did something together to fix a problem. That was cool.", ">\n\n\"Look, it was just a natural cycle!\" - Every climate change denier who's never once looked at the actual evidence.", ">\n\nLet's not pretend I've ever thought that I know more than the people who not only look at the research, but make it and have come to a consensus that climate change has been accelerated by human activity and that we need to do something if we don't want massive ecological catastrophe in the entirely too close future. \nScientists are not infallible, but they are scientists and they do actually have some idea what they're doing.", ">\n\n\nCan't really use \"scientist\" as there are plenty who have contradictionary findings.\n\nYes, I can because it's the name of a profession not a mystical concept. Furthermore, scientists finding different results is part of the process, not a point against them. And again, there's a consensus regardless of what a few people have found and reported to some dark corner of the internet where people still don't read it, but just yell \"See! See!\"", ">\n\nto add to lordfluffy, science that is disproven is just that, while proven science will just support a theory. There wouldn't necessarily be scientists \"with contradictory findings.\" In the same sense implied here. Internet scientists aren't scientists. \nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy, and if they aren't tested/peer reviewed against, it should never be accepted. Once the proper tests are run, there shouldn't be contradictory findings with a provable thesis.\nYou can't just fake data. This is why math is important, to bridge science and data and make it easier to understand.", ">\n\n\nInternet scientists aren't scientists.\n\nI don't even know what you think an \"internet scientist\" is. \n\nScience papers are peer reviewed for accuracy....\n\nYep. \nI don't understand what you're getting at.", ">\n\nI think they're on your side?", ">\n\nThey are and I will very much admit I'm embarrassed.", ">\n\nNah. You owned it. Chin up, homie. No embarrassment needed.", ">\n\nIt may shock you to learn that situations may change due to an unseen force called time. It's hella strange, I know.", ">\n\nI think you misinterpreted my intent. People in this thread is prasing covid and saying its the best news they heard for the last 10 years ect. When in fact its worse news than stated earlier by UN.", ">\n\nMeaning it will only have taken a total of over a century to heal. Not too optimistic about our carbon emissions.", ">\n\nWell, even if we stopped emitting global warming labeled gases, it would take well over a century for the atmosphere to stabilise. It would take an order greater than that to return to pre 1950 levels.\nAnd yes....we should still do that, if even in the hope that our great guest grandchildren have an ecosystem to notice.", ">\n\nI believe the hope would be with things like fusion power starting to potentially become viable we may soon have ways to do more intensive carbon capture since energy is one of the biggest obstacles to doing so at scale.", ">\n\nOr nuclear fission as we do today, but using more conscious plants, not those Fukushima-like behemoths, nuclear fission is clean and any nuclear leak risk is much less than burning coal, it's a matter of doing it responsibly.", ">\n\nIts clean compared to fossil fuels etc. but the storage of spent fuel is the primary concern. Who will store it? And where? Important questions.", ">\n\nI agree with you, there are all those challenges, I'm not advocating for it, but showing it as an alternative we have now and is promising. And as much as this is a real environmental problem, I find it, in my humble opinion, less pressing than smoking the CO2 out to the atmosphere, I mean, at least the Cesium is canned.", ">\n\nAgree. The single greatest health crime of modern history, worse than tobacco and sugar combined, has been how Nuclear was pushed to the fringes. Prime example of Wealth before Health.", ">\n\nThis is evidence that when countries come together to do something good it can actually work. It sucks there are certain political parties in various countries who actively fight to make things worse, so the non ignorant people need to keep fighting. All the ignorant \"do your own research\" idiots are mostly selfish, older people anyway, so let's push them aside and do some good.", ">\n\nLet's not fuck this up. Save the planet, eat a CEO", ">\n\nCan I eat Corie Barry?", ">\n\nI thought that joker healed itself a long time ago. I gotta get out more.", ">\n\nThey say hole, singular. How is this different than the southern hole which closed in 2020?\nTons of articles about it in 2020", ">\n\nThe ozone hole is cyclical and follows the orbit and rotation of Earth around the Sun (AKA: Changes with the seasons).\nThe ozone hole \"opens\" around September to October. This is the time of year that Earth is tilted on its axis so that the Southern Hemisphere is more exposed to the Sun.\nThe \"hole\" is not an actual hole either. It's more of an area of the ozone that is thinner and more depleted than the rest of the layer.", ">\n\nYes but when will they take down that shield?", ">\n\nIn 2066 I'll be drinking Moon Juice with President Johnathan Taylor Thomas!", ">\n\nShucks I was going to found a company to make sunglasses for cows.", ">\n\nTime to bring back CFCs", ">\n\nStop! Don't give them any ideas!", ">\n\nIt fascinates me. For a long time there, it seemed like we were really engaged with environmental issues. EPA founding, direct work solving the ozone issue, heavily encouraging the principals of recycling, arbor day and mass tree planting. What changed that it became such a divisive issue?", ">\n\nIt started cutting into oil profits, and became a culture war talking point.", ">\n\nGotta love when maga’s ask “what ever happened to the ozone they were bitching about “🧠🕳", ">\n\nConservation of wildlife, Clean air and water for everyone is the task at hand.. we can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano, climate change will happen as it has throughout history; but we can engineer and imagine a brighter world.", ">\n\n\nwe can’t put a catalytic converter in every volcano\n\nThey were quickly stolen :/", ">\n\nUntil the next Taco Bell", ">\n\nWhy did they listen here but almost nothing is done about climate change?", ">\n\nWe had a pretty easy replacement for the problem \nThere's nothing easy about overhauling infrastructure. Not to mention telling capitalists not to consume.", ">\n\nWe did it boys, climate change's no more.\n /s", ">\n\nWouldnt this hold more methane and co2 in?", ">\n\nNot on a scale that matters compared to keeping 98% of the Sun’s UV radiation from reaching earth", ">\n\nJoke's on the UN. We won't be here by then!", ">\n\nEV adoption and imminent nuclear fusion generation will all but eliminate fossil fuels, thank God.", ">\n\nNuclear fusion is not imminent. We are not even close to making it work as an energy source.", ">\n\nSo do nukes affect this at all?", ">\n\n\"It will be done, my lord.\"", ">\n\n*Barring a bad actor screwing things up in the intervening years", ">\n\nGuys, that’s 43 years away. Let’s not fuck this up.", ">\n\nBro people literally look at this as bad news because it’s not going to generate outrage", ">\n\nYay. Can I start wearing lower spf sunscreen every decade as it recovers?", ">\n\nI wonder if this speeds up Connor MacCloud’s quickening.", ">\n\nWasn't the hole letting out all the excess heat from burning fossil fuels?", ">\n\nIn case you’re not being facetious, yes, but the cooling effect by the ozone hole at its worst was absolutely dwarfed by the overall greenhouse gas heating effect globally. Keeping the ozone hole steady or letting it get worse would have caused far more problems than it solves, it is not a viable remedy to global warming. The shielding the ozone layer provides is extremely essential to preserving humans, our agriculture, and other life on earth.", ">\n\nBy which time the biosphere will be on the edge of collapse.", ">\n\nAnd yet there are still people claiming that the ozone hole was a myth/hoax.", ">\n\nWhy can’t the bad emissions go OUT through the ozone hole??", ">\n\nAnd on that day Australians will celebrate by throwing away their SPF100 sunscreen in joy and finally live life without fear of mild radiation burns every summer.", ">\n\nBy that time the world will have turned into Mad Max fury road, so how tf is this good news. We are fucking doomed people. We gonna fucking die and go extinct.", ">\n\nOver 40 years from now..... \nThis title is assuming nothing else will prevent the healing from occurring... \nI highly doubt this is true but what do I know.", ">\n\nI remember hearing about the shit state of the ozone when I was in school in 1996. So I'll be nearly 80 by the time it's repaired. Just in time for poisoned oceans and plastic in every single thing.", ">\n\nGreat, I’ll be long gone by then.", ">\n\nJust your friendly EPA section 608 tech here! We’re serious about defeating HCFCs, I wish we would get as serious about climate change and CO2/methane.", ">\n\nIn a rational world this news would prove to climate change denialists that human behavior does affect the climate and altering it has an impact.", ">\n\n...so we've cherry picked the year it's looking better as \"news\":\n\nNatural weather patterns in the Antarctic also affect ozone hole levels, which peak in the fall. And the past couple years, the holes have been a bit bigger because of that but the overall trend is one of healing, Newman said.\n\nYou can see the trend on a yearly basis on the NASA website.", ">\n\nWe did it Reddit, climate change is gone.", ">\n\nCool. Can we not do that whole EV thing and make cars affordable instead?", ">\n\nBy 2066 if we don’t go into a Global Nuclear Holocaust…", ">\n\nDownvote me all you want. We all know it’s true!", ">\n\nDamn.. scratch all the sustainability bullshit then?", ">", ">\n\nIsnt it a bad thing to close the hole in the ozone? Now none of the carbon emissions can escape. Or am I completely wrong?", ">\n\nThis is irrelevant in comparison to the devastation of allowing the sun to nuke us with UV", ">\n\nBut isnt whats killing the ice caps the carbon emissions? In the short run less skin cancer but in the long run more sea level.", ">\n\nYet these same scientists, and many others, give no convincing evidence that there will be a 2066. The day that would have been 2066 will arrive, and likely the hole will indeed be gone, but that's not the same thing.", ">\n\nThey should call my proctologist because he mended my hole in a matter of weeks.", ">\n\nAll it takes is one well-aimed GRB…", ">\n\nYes, atmosphere weather. The one thing we are great about predicting 40+ years into the future.", ">\n\nHow about the bone zone?" ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nShip of Theseus band. \nAlso no as they become part of the original band so not a cover band." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nShip of Theseus band. \nAlso no as they become part of the original band so not a cover band.", ">\n\nWhat if the band is named after the one person who had been in the band the whole time?" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nShip of Theseus band. \nAlso no as they become part of the original band so not a cover band.", ">\n\nWhat if the band is named after the one person who had been in the band the whole time?", ">\n\nYou gotta love when bands do that. One of them played my county fair several years ago and the only original dude left was the bass player, who did not sing. Is it really the same band? Lol" ]

[]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?" ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes." ]

[ "/u/Viceroy1994 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nWhere did you get the term handouts? Government assistance you mean? Lots of poor white people especially in southern states receive assistance. These are the ones who vote against their own interests by voting in government officials who would to cut assistance to those in need.\nThere is also the issue of systemic and generational assistance. The system is broken and needs to overhauled.", ">\n\nPoverty is an issue to be sure, but the root causes tend to be far different from racial inequalities.\nA prime example I use to illustrate is the GI Bill post World War 2. While written in a seemingly race-neutral language, the execution was handed to state governments for fund distribution, with laws that stymied loan offers despite federal backing e.g. many banks just wouldn't make loans for Black Americans at a state level. This resulted in only a few thousand of the 1.2 million Black Americans who served gaining any benefit from the GI bill, and this had generational effects; one estimate puts that descendants of WWII Black Veterans would need $180,000 a piece to have the same benefit level that white vet descendants received over the subsequent eight decades.", ">\n\n!delta\nYou bring up an interesting point, people in-charge of enforcing these laws might have a racial bias, but that's not an issue with the laws themselves, the idea is still sound, it will just need a good, carefully monitored execution.", ">\n\nCounter point: is the best course of action to stop an allegedly small percentage of individuals racial bias in one direction to write tbe laws with certain racial bias in the other direction?\nThat seems like the goal then is to encourage racial bias not stop it.\nMany of the examples cited are due to income levels and statistics. Banks make most profit from lending with lending algorithms being human removed. They use MANY millions of data points and individuals history to determine loan worthiness. Sometimes people are just less safe loans it doesn't mean its an \"x-ism\" it just means that statistics show what they show.", ">\n\nAlgorithms are written by humans thus exhibit their biases. That’s why there is controversy about AI learning and teaching them the biases of humans", ">\n\nThere is no bias in raw data. These algorithms dont predicted based on skin color they predict based on macro trends of millions of previous loans. If the algorithm suggested black individuals didnt pay loams because of their skin color then you would have an argument but its based on loan history of decades.", ">\n\nThere is bias in what data is chosen and marked as important. What data the person chooses to feed into the algorithm will reflect the biases of that person and not create sterile raw data. So if the data comes from a country where black people have been discriminated against and the algorithm says black people don’t pay loans back maybe it’s more to that data then “black peoples don’t pay back loans”", ">\n\nIn the case of banking, we have literally 100s of years of loans. The algorithms dont say \"black people dont pay loans\" its people making X or less who have Y assets regularly pay back Z loans in full but dont pay W loans in full. \" it is literally race agnostic.\nIf the data then shows a disparity that is unfortunate but explain to me why black owned banks in black majority neighborhoods would give less to black loan seekers than white banks?", ">\n\n100 of years of loans from one of the more discriminatory institutions in the United States. Banks are still losing lawsuits for redlining., discriminating during appraisals and loan applications. So do you think that feeding data from banks into a algorithm is going to give you a unbiased appraisal?", ">\n\nAgain, why would black owned and operated banks give less money to black people than white people. Some numbers are objectivly important in determining loan worthiness. The solution is never use actual discrimination to fix potential discrimination.", ">\n\nWould black owned and operated banks represent the majority of the 100 years of bank loan data fed into your algorithm? If the answer is no your algorithm would still produce the same bused results. The reason for that is white banks make up the major of banks and have a long and current history of discrimination against black people.\nNothing suggests black owned banks hand out fewer loans to black people. The reason for this is black owned banks were made to serve a underserved community…..black people. Now if your saying there’s the solution….we’ll pal discrimination makes it harder for minori to open banks in the past before the modern regulations made it almost impossible for anyone to open new banks.\nLol well using positive discrimination in colleges made it so more minorities go to college, own homes etc. so how is positive discrimination not working?\nEdit to add\n“Some numbers are objectively important to loan worthiness”\nIn what system were those numbers decided on. We’re they decided on in a system of pervasive racism or a system where racism is not present at all?", ">\n\nBecause race isn't always the middle man. \nGuess the amount of VC that goes to black business owners in America. Don't look it up...just guess. What's your percentage?\nJames smith and Jamal smith don't get treated the same when it comes to job interviews. Black students get suspended for the same behavior white students get verbal warnings for. We still have black lawyers evaluated lower than white lawyers for the exact same work. \nWhile we can pretend that we have gotten rid of racism that's simply not a true statement. \nThe answer is 1.2 percent. How close were you?", ">\n\nThese are social issues, in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity, it's not something you can legislate away, but you can dampen the harmful effects of it by helping its victims. You can identify the victims again by wealth level, it doesn't have to be race.\nEdit: Assuming that what you're saying is the whole truth.", ">\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\nIf you think \"in-group preference is a fundamental fact of humanity\", how do you explain that different cultures show differing degrees of racism? Just take a look at American history: Would you say that black people are better off than 100 years ago? Societies are changing, evolving and it's not like racism is always going to be the same, no matter what you do.", ">\n\n\nHow does giving money to the poor get a black lawyer a job or a black middle class family a home, when both is denied to them based on their race?\n\nThose actually are punishable crimes.", ">\n\nThey may be unlawful, but they aren't crimes and they are difficult to prove because nearly everyone is smart enough not to say they're denying them because of their race." ]